[Updated] UAH, straight from the source, Dr. Roy Spencer who announced it on his blog today.
The was a lot of speculation last year that our global temperature would recover from the huge drops last spring. While there has been some recovery, the overall global temperature trend since 1999 has been the subject of much debate. What is not debatable is that the current global temperature anomaly, as determined by a leading authority on global satellite temperature measurements, says we have no departure from “normal” this month. Given the U.S. Senate is about to vote upon the most complex and costly plan to regulate greenhouse gases, while the EPA suppresses earlier versions of the chart shown below from a senior analyst, this should give some pause to those who are rational thinkers. For those that see only dogma, I expect this will be greeted with jeers. – Anthony
June 2009 Global Temperature Anomaly Update: 0.00 deg. C
Dr. Roy Spencer
July 3rd, 2009
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036
2009 2 0.347 0.678 0.016 0.051
2009 3 0.206 0.310 0.103 -0.149
2009 4 0.090 0.124 0.056 -0.014
2009 5 0.045 0.046 0.044 -0.166
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
June 2009 saw another — albeit small — drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Tropics. The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade.
NOTE: A reminder for those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here:
(1) Only use channel 5 (”ch05″), which is what we use for the lower troposphere and middle troposphere temperature products.
(2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year (which is already plotted for you).
(3) The progress of daily temperatures (the current month versus the same calendar month from one year ago) should only be used as a rough guide for how the current month is shaping up because they come from the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite, which has a substantial diurnal drift in the local time of the orbit. Our ‘official’ results presented above, in contrast, are from AMSU on NASA’s Aqua satellite, which carries extra fuel to keep it in a stable orbit. Therefore, there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed in our official product.
Sponsored IT training links:
Sign up for 642-384 products including latest 642-661 dumps to pass 642-691 exams even on limited time.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I predict that Obama will eventually wake up realizing he is in very deep doodoo, he is already WAY over his head in so many areas (especially foreign policy). At some point, when he finally realizes what he has done, and that the US will never recover from his agenda’s, he will wake in a very cold sweat. Unfortunately, at that point his policies will have already done irreversible and devastating harm. Keep watching, it’s coming…
Bob, please forgive my ignorance on this topic, but, what makes you believe the SST will continue to rise? Could it be possible for the SST to dip down again at a timely near point? I am ignorant of what causes SST to bump up and down. There must be a reason why you think the rise will continue to a pre-determined point in time. Care to share?
Please forgive, perhaps I am in need of those glasses now, but I see no such spots. I see something in the SH that *could* be a spot perhaps, but isn’t that cycle 23? Its in the SH, and it’s polarity is opposite that of 24 cycle spots. These dang spots, ummm specks, can never tell if they are on the sun or my monitor.
All well and good, but carbon is only part of the coming Thermageddon. After all, carbon is only ~27% of Carbon Dioxide. The Dear Leader and His minions must also get going, regulating the major component of CO2 — Oxygen ! No O2, no CO2. It’s that simple. If they really want to cut CO2, they must stop their thoughtless, automatic Oxygen conversion to CO2.
—
Tom
Man, oh Man. Great Interview with Richard Lindzen. How I’d love to “tip a few” with that guy.
Thanks so much for the link.
“Shr_Nfr”
Thanks. Do you know of any measurement means whereby they use the width of an individual absorption line to determine the altitude of the measurement?
Exercising my spreadsheet-fu…
* RSS monthly data Feb 1997 to May 2009; trendline slope is negative
* Hadley monthly data Mar 1997 to May 2009; trendline slope is negative
* UAH monthly data May 1997 to June 2009; trendline slope is negative
* GISS monthly data Dec 2000 to May 2009; trendline slope is negative
Can somebody confirm that I’m not badly wrong?
Dennis Wingo (21:40:49) :
“Shr_Nfr”
Thanks. Do you know of any measurement means whereby they use the width of an individual absorption line to determine the altitude of the measurement?
It certainly can be done, here’s an example:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1647.pdf
Just wanted to say that the only thing that is “happening faster than they expected” is the realization in the public’s mind that CAGW is a failed theory.
As I look at that graph from mid 1979 to mid 2009 it looks like the are both on the zero line. So since “climate” is defined at the 30 year weather cycle, can’t we say that the 30 year climate change is zero?
FWIW, in the world of stocks (another chaotic semi-random dataset…) this would be called a typical “blow off top” 1998 followed by a “failure to advance” in 2004-2006 or so with 2007 now being the “lower high” with 2008 being the “lower low”. This would be cause to “short the stock” because it’s headed down. Probably very hard. No idea if the analysis method transfers, but it sure looks like what I’ve seen a thousand times before followed by a drop.
Oh, and for everyone holding their breath for the tomato report…
I finally have tomatoes! Many green ones (set fruit a few weeks back) and even harvested a few red ones off the “4th of July” that was planted back in April… This is a 45 day variety and it was planted from a gallon sized pot. Ought to have given fruit by late May or early June, not 4 weeks later… Being under The Big Blue Blob has not been kind to the garden. I’m also getting green beans (only on my Royal Purple pod, though – the cool tolerant ones… The Kentucky Wonders are slow to grow but have flowers, at last… A friend 20 miles away has Blue Lake producing nicely, again a few weeks late. He has only one or two tomatoes ripened so far.) We’ve been clearly running about 10F lower than recent years for many of the highs of the day. Oh, and Argentina is talking about shutting off wheat exports…
What I like most about this cooling trend, post PDO flip, is that the AGW Advocates are stuck in one heck of a bind. They can pass Cap and Tax, really get everyone P.O’d and they will then have a choice:
1) Admit that it’s gotten darned cold in a couple of years and that CO2 had nothing to do with it and they have wasted a few $Trillion of national treasure. Or…
2) Try to claim credit for the cooling despite CO2 continuing to rise from China, India, Russia, et.al. and face the incredible wrath of cold, hungry, unemployed voters demanding that they set the temperature back up some.
3) Attempt to pedal the notion that it’s not really colder with several feet of snow where it ought not to be and crop failures throughout the world. One year can be talked down as a fluke, but not two… To the average person, One is a fluke, Two is a Trend, Three is a movement…
I don’t envy them their “victory” in the short run. By 2010 there will be opponents running who will say AGW is bunk (unlike last time when there was no real choice…) They now “own” the setting of the thermostat, and it isn’t hooked up to the heater… I, for one, intend to frequently send letters complaining that they set it too low and my garden is too cold (and Argentine wheat is too dry and Canadian Barley is being planted in the snow and…)
Plans for the 4th include a memorial WUWT BBQ with BOTH propane AND charcoal ! Grill to be located within 10 feet of the patio thermometer, of course! Volumes of carbonated beverages to have their CO2 set free to boot…
XKCD has a nice comment about graphical extrapolation… http://www.xkcd.com/
However, I know how to deal with this pesky anomaly. It must be a volcano adding extra particles to the air. No, we can’t fund an expedition to discover which one – don’t you know that expeditions are costly things and generate lots of extra CO2…?
In fact its mostly the periods around 1985 and 1993 thats colder than today. Both these periods where influented by vulcanoes, El Chicon and Pinatubo respectively. Right now we have no Volcanoes or La Nina.
Squidly: You asked, “what makes you believe the SST will continue to rise?”
For ENSO, most of the predictions posted by NOAA call for a moderate El Nino. Refer to page 28 of the following weekly CPC report:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) is also predicting a moderate El Nino:
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/seasonal/forecast/seasonal_range_forecast/nino_plumes_public_s3!3.4!200906!/
Global temperatures lag El Nino and La Nina events by 3 to 6 months. Depending on the variable (surface temperature, SST, or TLT), the global temperature response can be as much as 0.09 deg C for every 1 deg C variation in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. And depending on the type of El Nino and how the El Nino distributes that heat, the temperatures can remain elevated for a number of years. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
Regards
David S: You wrote, “But when I look at the MSU temperature data I see a step function at the El Nino year 1998. Prior to that the anomaly is zero.”
Sam the Skeptic, you responded to the comment by David S, so this might be of interest to you.
The step change following the 1997/98 El Nino is caused the poleward heat transport and the lingering of the heat. That amount of heat doesn’t dissipate in one year, as many like to believe, and apparently as GCMs suggest. The lingering heat can be seen in the RSS MSU Time-Latitude Plots in the following post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
In fact, Figure 11 shows the upward step change in the Northern Mid-to-High Latitude TLT anomalies after the 1997/98 El Nino. I also used that illustration in another post that Anthony ran here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/06/another-look-at-polar-amplification/
Regards
Frank Lansner (15:23:31) :
The present low temperature level appears over 1 year after the last real La Nina ended. What would happend if a real La Nina started from this temperature level?
Ok. You might recall a few months back WUWT posted an article which suggested that La Nina was back. In fact, an ‘official’ La Nina never developed because SST did not remain below the La Nina threshold for the required number of overlapping quarters. There was a fair bit of discussion on this.
However, although there wasn’t an ‘official’ La Nina, ocean temperatures reflected La Nina conditions. This showed up in the GISS/Hadley data earlier in the year – probably because the surface records ‘see’ the SST effect immediately. Anyway, the cooler SST from a few months back, are showing up in the satellite records now.
No-one can really predict future ENSO events, so we can’t really say how things will pan out in the longer term, but in the immediate short term, satellite temperatures look set to rise. And if an El Nino should develop then that rise could be substantial. Note with zero NINO anomalies RSS and UAH had anomalies of +0.3 deg C.
See Bob Tisdale’s (18:10:27) for a more sober assessment of the situation.
Ray (14:14:35) :
Ok… we can say that for June the temperature has been average !!!
What is the level of CO2 for June? Has it been rising still? Obviously, the rise of CO2 is related to climate change but is certainly not the driver.
_____________________________
Correct Ray.
There has been no global warming since the satellites were launched in 1979.
And there was slight global cooling from 1940 to 1979.
So there has been no global warming since 1940, despite an increase of ~800% in humanmade CO2 emissions. See the first graph at:
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
In it we are seeing ~one full PDO Cycle. The alarmists like to portray only the warming half of the last PDO cycle, and then project it infinitely into the future. This is, of course, nonsense.
One could argue that the Surface Temperature data should be adjusted for Urban Heat Island effect, This would suggest approx. 0.3C GLOBAL COOLING since 1940.
Ironically, it would be easier to suggest that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global cooling, not global warming, but don’t tell the alarmists that – it could be their next “very scary” fundraising campaign.
Atmospheric CO2 continues to climb from 315ppm in 1958 to more than ~380 ppm today. I haven’t examined it lately because it doesn’t matter. Why? Because CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. So the warmists are claiming that the future causes the past. I don’t like their logic. See
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
E.M.Smith
So pleased to hear about your tomatoes! your earlier post re Siberian and Arctic varieties led me to research and locate seeds available here in Scotland which my wife intends to cultivate next year. This year’s crop of English varieties looks promising, but the previous 2 years were total failures, despite the CET for 2007 and 2008 ramping up hotter and hotter. It takes very little research to discover that the CET series is not in fact a true series, having been changed in it’s locations and it’s readings adjusted, for reasons that seem dubious to a layman like me.
@ur momisugly Tom Mahany (21:23:13) :
” All well and good, but carbon is only part of the coming Thermageddon. After all, carbon is only ~27% of Carbon Dioxide. The Dear Leader and His minions must also get going, regulating the major component of CO2 — Oxygen ! No O2, no CO2. It’s that simple. If they really want to cut CO2, they must stop their thoughtless, automatic Oxygen conversion to CO2.
–
Tom ”
Not only that, but O2 is far deadlier. It is an “Oxyidizer”!. Which means it supports “Combustion” ! OMG! We must save the forests from O2! And, and it makes stuff “Rust”! We must save everything from the deadly “Rust!” I call for a ban on all O2!
To the comment above about El Nino driving seeming to drive temperature.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalElNino.htm
‘Except that, CO2 is still rising at expected rates. I see no change or slowdown in the CO2 rise … do you?’
I don’t see no slowdown in CO2 rise.
It’s rising like a Swiss watch keeps time.
A real Steady Eddy, that one.
Specially when doing the sampling the “scientists” then take 82% of the collected data and reject it in favor of the18% that fits the bill…..
http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/australian-michael-ashley-reviews-ian.html
Seems people have been trying to frame CO2 for a crime it has never committed, for quite awhile now?
Interesting comment in the Lindzen interview.
Observing that there is “an element of religion” in the global warming movement”, the two gentlemen mentioned the following phrase:
“When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.”
This quotation has been attributed to both GK Chesterton and Emile Cammaerts.
Certainly the warming alarmists I have met have a religious fervor unmatched by most modern religions. And they want to burn me at the stake for disagreeing with them, until I point out that this would only cause more warming.
What does use of the swung dash ” ~ ” signify?
I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste. But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn’t it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?
Would be pleased if you answer me.
Regards,
Rainer
Roger Carr (04:48:45),
I think it means “approximately,” or “about.”
“The Earth has a fever and just like when your child has a fever, maybe that’s a warning of something seriously wrong,” -Al Gore
“If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor.” Al Gore
“Mr. Gore, your baby earth is ok now, please get out of my office, go home and live your life.” -the doctor